David Cavallo

Apologies in advance for replying to a thread that's nearly five years old. How is the efficacy/strength of the HD Classic Soft affected when used with a S35 size sensor camera? I'm currently using 1/4 Classic Soft and 1/8 Classic Soft on a doc feature shooting on the Amira, and would like an option that's less strong than 1/8 for heavy backlight situations. (I realize 1/8 is very mild, but we would prefer to not shoot entirely clean.) Many thanks, David

Can anyone tell me if Arri SR magazines are compatible with the SR2 body? They seem to look the same as the SR2 magazines, but I know looks can be deceiving. Many thanks, David

I'm shooting a very low budget student film on Super 16 next week, which will be transferred to Digi-Beta. The director is looking for a soft, pastel, low-contrast look, so I've suggested either 7229 or Fuji Reala 500D 8692, two stocks I've shot before to achieve these types of results. The problem is the disparity in the locations; the one interior is a large church, with mostly daylight. And since the lighting package is abysmal--small tungsten fresnels that will require gelling to match the daylight--I'll need every bit of the 500s speed to make the location work. (I'm leaning towards the Reala because I won't need an 85, and thus won't lose the 2/3 of a stop; also, I'd prefer to work with no filtration with Super 16.) The other location, however, is an open field, which we'll be shooting in the summer sun, and either 7229 or 8692 will require some heavy NDs--which I am very reluctant to use--to get down to my planned shooting stop of T2.8/4. Any suggestions on a low-speed daylight stock that might match well with 7229 or 8692, so I don't have to use all those NDs? I wish I had the time and money to do tests, but there was barely money in the budget to upgrade from regular 16 to Super! Many thanks, David

I've finally tracked down all the footage from the shoots I've done over the past year or two and cut my reel. It looks good on a DVD, but we all know the reality is producers want to click on a link and learn all about you in 15 seconds or less...ha ha. Any advice on a good, reasonably priced solution for hosting my own website? (I thought about YouTube, etc. but the quality is just too lousy, and that sort of presentation isn't professional, anyway.) I plan on keeping it SUPER simple--a still on the main page, along with my name, e-mail and phone number, and a few navigation buttons to my reel, resume and some still photography. Anyone had good/bad experiences with any companies they can share? I can do basic-intermediate HTML coding as well as prep my media for web delivery with Final Cut . Many thanks in advance, David David Cavallo AC/Aspiring Cinematographer NYC Area

Thanks for the reply, Jason. With the DVX (or HVX) I guess I was thinking of actual hand-holding--I didn't even consider renting a shoulder mount (PS Technik makes one, I see from their website). Cradling hasn't been a problem in the past with a standard DVX/HVX--I've done a fair amount of handheld stuff with both cameras, with reasonably good results, sticking mostly with short focal lengths where I wasn't completely stable or balanced against a wall. But since it's not entirely comfortable to hold either the DVX or HVX in your hands for a long time--it can get real awkward after a few hours!--I'm guessing that the camera's balance with the PS Mini 35 adapter would be simply atrocious. As you point out, there's no real reason to do "shakey-cam" footage with 35mm format primes--the director wants the shallow depth of field--so I guess the only way to go is with the shoulder mount package. I'll have to look into it, and if I do shoot with it, I'll report back. Thanks again, David

My guess is that the weight of prime lenses and the small size of the DVX make this an obvious "no," but has anyone ever attempted handholding a DVX-100 with a P+S Technik Mini 35 adapter? Thanks, David

HVX Workflow CRISIS - HELP DESPERATELY NEEDED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scheduled to start a TV pilot today but producer, DP, AC have been holed up for nearly six hours last night trying to solve a massive HVX/Drive/Avid problem and are in DIRE need of help ASAP. We have FS-100 drives that have the latest firmware update (3.0.0.0040 etc), and 2 HVX cameras. We are importing into Avid Express Pro HD w/a Power Book G4 w/G RAID 2 500G drives. However, we CANNOT get useable footage from ANY HD mode. 1. 720p Native -- When transferring from the FS-100 (set to P2N), shooting 720/24pN to Avid, more than 1/2 of the MXF files imported get an error that says the audio and video clip lengths (MMF error? it's been a long night) don't match and the clips will not play. We have carefully followed all instructions on how to import into Avid (from this forum.) After hours searching on the web, reading the HVX book, Avid newsgroups and others, and consulting with our editor, we cannot come up with a practical solution. Our shoot is in jeopardy. (The User Bit is properly set to Frame Rate, too.) 2. We abandoned our hopes to shoot 24PN (it's a doc style shoot so P2 cards are out of the question--we don't even have any on set) and tried: 720p/24p (over 60 mode) -- the MXF files imported into Avid (set up as a 59.94 project) stuttered badly--totally unusable!! We tried creating a new project with different time-bases, but, of course, they don't match the clips, so they won't play. We then tried again and again. Same thing. Stutter. 1080i/24p - same result. Same result also when we played with time base. Will not play. So...now we have a system that has set us back several thousand dollars for the weekend that WILL NOT record any useable footage to our AVID system. Has anyone ever had this type of problem? To be clear--we've tried importing and reimporting, and going through almost every user setting in the cameras and the FS-100, but all to no avail. It's truly a nightmarish situation for all involved, and a large number of people are counting on us to shoot tomorrow! If anyone can help, please let me know. We are in the NY area, and will pass along the producers phone number if anyone has real answers. We are almost out of time. Thanks a great deal. --David Cavallo

Thanks, David. Is there a scene in one of the films you've shot that's a good example of this? It sounds like it's truer to the "actual" look of the fluorescent bulbs... Thank you, David

Starting production on a short next week and fluorescents are part of the equation in a number of scenes. I'll need to use a few approaches to deal with them and would greatly appreciate some advice. (I've read many informative posts but still don't have it down cold yet!) I'm shooting s16 7218 500T under cool white fluoros (and filling with a kino fitted with the same) and want to keep that dirty green look (it's a welfare office). Should I still be shooting with an 85 on the lens for the tungsten film? (Are cool whites true daylight balance, just with a green spike?) The dailies will be one light, so I'll make a note on the cam report to leave IN the green. (And shoot a grey card under tungsten light with full (?) CTB for a "white light" reference.) My thought is if it's "too much" green I'll be able to take some out in the final supervised tape to tape session. Any thoughts on that? Will skin tones get too magenta? I ask also because in another scene, I'm using a similar approach (augmenting cool whites with a kino filled with same) but simply want a bright institutional look (it's a waiting room) without the green, so I was planning on shooting the grey card under the greenish lights and having the lab time it all out. Again, wondering about skin tones... Last question--is there a big difference between "cool whites" and "deluxe cool whites"? Any thoughts on how to tell which is which in an existing fixture? What's more common? Just a note--there's a virtually non-exisitent budget for gels--I've barely receieved enough for a roll of diffusion!--so aside from my own small pack, I can't get large rolls to cover the overhead banks of fluoros and deal with the situation that way. Thanks, David

Wow, I really can't thank you enough for this, Tim! I believe those are exactly what the mags look like (I've worked as an AC with the camera a few times) and your diagram is incredibly clear. I believe you've saved me a tremendous hassle. Many thanks! -David

Tim, I'm not sure--I've just never read anything in the XTR manual or anywhere online that said it can be done. But if you're correct it will be tremendously helpful. Respooling film seems truly impractical. I'll look into it today. Thank you, David

OK, I've arranged it so we can use the camera for a few hours and shoot a few interior and exterior test shots. But because of the budget issue, I can only purchase 100' daylight loads of 7218 and 7279 for the test. And the camera is an Aaton XTR Plus, which obviously only takes 400' loads on a core in the magazine. So (and this might be a really dumb question, but I don't want to make any mistakes with only one shot at it)--is there a "safe" or feasible way of getting the stock off the 100' reel and onto a core--in the changing bag, but precisely how? As it's single perf, can it be wound properly from the daylight load onto a core without damaging the stock and keeping the wind the right way? I just can't seem to visualize it. Thanks again.

Obviously a rhetorical question, but still, absolutely not. I understand the tremendous importance and value of shooting tests. The problem isn't buying 100' of film stock and paying the small sum for processing and a print/transfer, but rather the camera. The director is a student doing his thesis film, and due to various problems (nonsense, really) with the school, he's been shut out of using their Super 16 package at the last minute. So now that the camera has to be rented, his budget is maxed--probably even over. I have asked repeatedly for funds for a test, all to no avail. I could probably get access to a standard 16 camera for free--an Arri S or a hand crank Bolex--but only with a beat up lens--would that tell me enough to make a realistic judgement? Just not sure. Nonetheless I will plead my case with the director. Now...anyone know where I can get a 100' load of double perf 7279? Sigh...

Thank you for the great information, Michael. I was basing my description of my planned post workflow on a conversation I had with a more experienced DP (who has worked with the same lab and a similar process) and I clearly I got the specs jumbled. (A little information is a dangerous thing!) If you could answer a few more questions on the process, I'd greatly appreciate it. Is a 2K scan only done to uncompressed data files for a DI, for an eventual finish on film? (Never to video, due to the limitations of video compression schemes?) Is an HD telecine done the same way as an SD telecine--Flying Spot Scanner--but at 1920 x 1080 instead of SD--with 4:2:2 HDCAM compression? If this isn't considered "real" 2K, what is the resolution (in mathematical terms, if possible), taking into consideration the compression? Finally, is HDCAM SR (4:4:4) the highest possible resolution one can finish at on video? Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, David

Thank you for the information, David. I am planning on both underexposing and pushing a stop and using an "available light" look (as well as the appropriate locations and art direction to control the palette, contrast and saturation). But based on what you've said, I'm now wondering if the grain structure of a modern 500 speed film (say, the Vision 7279, which I'm almost sold on) would be close to a 60s-70s stock like 100 speed 5247? Or, because I'm shooting S16 and not 35, should I actually shoot a slower speed film due to the significantly smaller negative area in S16mm? Unfortunately the production cannot afford to do ANY tests. (Except for my own pre-production stills, which are of no help in this regard.) [i suppose I'm thinking (perhaps incorrectly!) that since 35 has inherently much finer grain/resolution than the S16mm format, even if old 100 speed 35mm emulsions have much coarser grain structures than modern stocks, due to the format difference the new 500 speed 16mm stocks would still be noticeably grainier than older 100 speed 35mm emulsions?] Also, from your post I gather the lenses in the 70s played a role in the look too--would they be considered more contrasty or less contrasty than modern glass? Based on my stills, I think excess contrast will be a real burden when shooting in low-light. Do NYC rental houses (like Abel) stock old model primes? Thank you again for your advice.